A Response to a couple of Scott's articles on
sw: = Scott Windsor
sj: = I'll just leave his initials to identify him, and use bold text.
<< sw: In conclusion, I have taken four of the most basic confessions of Protestantism, quoted verbatim their teaching on sola scriptura. The objective reader must come away from this reading seeing how lacking the foundational level of sola scriptura is, if not realizing the outright lie that sola scriptura is. Scripture does not teach sola scriptura, so that sola facto (fact alone) should convince anyone that sola scriptura is a false teaching, a teaching that was invented by men some time after the Scriptures were recorded. Since we do not find the teaching within the written Word of God - anyone adhering to a teaching that demands the sole rule of faith are the Scriptures must reject the rule itself.>>
<< sw: I fully understand the difference between solo and sola scriptura - actually, literally speaking, there is no such thing as "solo" scriptura - the genders don't match. I have also done another response, going back to the sources of sola scriptura:>>
sj: After reading your attack on the catechism to argue that they didn't know what they were teaching, I can only conclude you really do NOT know the difference. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we have no Church, no tradition, no reason, etc....We don't have to argue over whether or not the Bible teaches sola scriptura during times of oral revelation. That was never the debate in the 16th century. All branches of the Church, EO, RCC, and Protestants agreed that divine revelation had ended with the Apostles. So you are giving a non-sequitur, a straw man, and passing it of as your understanding of sola.
sw: No, I am presenting the fact that sola scriptura itself is not a scriptural teaching. No straw man there, no non-sequitor, just a plain and simple fact.
sj: Second, we does the Bible teach Apostolic succession? You see, two can play at that game.
sw: First off, this is not a game, next, I assume you're asking "where" does the Bible teach Apostolic succession? I answer that two ways. 1) I am not bound by sola scriptura, I have no requirement to show my faith from Scripture alone. 2) Acts 1:16-26. Judas held an "office" or "bishoprick" that according to OT Scripture, HAD to be filled. "And his ministry let another take." Clearly, even if we held to sola scriptura, we find Apostolic succession in even Judas' office - why would we assume there is no succession in the other Apostolic offices? Now, go to the earliest of the Early Church Fathers - and what do they almost ALWAYS point to to show their orthodoxy? They point to their valid succession to the Apostles.
sj: As far as the canon is concerned you write:" sw: So, where IN Scripture do we find this canonical list? We don't. This is an extra scriptura teaching
sj: No kidding Scott. Before we come to the Word of God in Genesis, we come to the word of the Church in the table of contents. That Church is OT Israel and NT Israel. Again, that was never the debate over sola scriptura. That critique would be devastating to solo scriptura...i.e. the texts and no Church, tradition, etc....Further, it proves my point nicely, you simply do not know the difference.
sw: 1) As I pointed out to you the first time, technically speaking there is no such thing as "solo scriptura." You're using Latin here, and in Latin the genders of the words must match. You can't take the masculine "solo" and use it with the feminine "scriptura," that's a linguistic no-no. Essentially, "sola" and "solo" are the same word with different gender connotations. 2) I must assume that your point here is that you believe my argument is that Protestants believe the Bible is the ONLY Word of God, but I would challenge you to find such a statement in any of my argumentation. 3) One of the chief objections to sola scriptura is the fact that there is no single definitive definition. Even James White, whose discourse you read in my reply, freely admits that most Protestants don't have a clue about what sola scriptura REALLY means. One has to ask, "If sola scriptura is so foundational to Protestantism, then why is the definition of it so evasive?" 4) The definition of sola scriptura that I have found most Evangelicals agree to is: "The Scriptures are the sole infallible Word of God, and as such are to be the sola regula fidei - or the sole rule of faith." Sola scriptura is NOT a teaching that there are no other authorities - only that there are no other infallible authorities.
sj: My advice is to get the book, as Keith shows that the early church practiced what he terms tradition I, that they taught the regula fidei of post-apostolic tradition. The concept of a two-source theory of revelation was completely foreign to them.
sw: James White openly admits that sola scriptura was not practiced by Jesus, the Apostles nor was it practiced by the Early Church Fathers during the process of inscripturation. (I only bring up White again because you initiated this discussion from my response to him). As far as getting the book, I would accept it should someone give me a copy and would read it, but I will not be going out to purchase it. I have been debating this subject for over a decade and a half - I doubt Keith will offer anything different than I have seen before - but as I said, I would look at it if I had it.
sj: The debate in the 16th century was not Scripture vs. tradition but Scripture and tradition vs. a novel form of tradition. It was Rome who departed from the early church.
sw: Actually, the debate of the 16th Century was over authority. Luther defied the authority in Rome, and to justify and/or rationalize his position, he had to show a different authority - so he invented sola scriptura. Consider this fact, IF sola scriptura truly was so foundational to the Christian Faith AND Latin was the primary language of the Church from very early on and even past Luther's day - why are the words "sola scriptura" completely non-existent until the 16th century? One would think that such an important doctrine that can so easily be summed up in two words would have been commonly used in the common language of the Church LONG before the 16th century.
sj: So much for a man-made doctrine.
sw: You have not yet provided any evidence to the contrary. I submit that it was unheard of until Luther's day. I would gladly look at any evidence you have that shows otherwise.
sj: God Bless.
sw: And may He bless you as well and guide us both to the fullness of His Grace.
PS- The articles which sj is responding to are:
Return to ACTS Homepage